W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2002

RDF testcase rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0006.rdf

From: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:53:03 -0500
Message-Id: <200212021853.gB2Ir3KT002054@nautilus-chet.watson.ibm.com>
To: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk


From the testcase,

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/resource/"
                   rdf:type="http://example.org/class/"/>
  
</rdf:RDF>

I cannot decide if this should be equivalent to

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/resource/">
  <rdf:type resource="http://example.org/class/"/>
</rdf:RDF>

or

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/resource/">
  <rdf:type>http://example.org/class/"</rdf:type>
</rdf:RDF>

While it is clear that we mean the former (second XML in message),
this means that rdf:type is a special case (cf. the RDF Primer):

  One of the abbreviations allowed by RDF/XML is that when properties
  are not repeated within an rdf:Description element, and the values
  of those properties are literals, the properties can be written as
  XML attributes of the rdf:Description element ...

It seems that this example, instead of being equivalent to the Ntripe

<http://example.org/resource/> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://example.org/class/> .

should instead be equivalent to

<http://example.org/resource/> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> "http://example.org/class/" .

--chet--
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 22:30:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT